Sutter Health antitrust trial won’t be heard remotely, judge rules

A $400 million antitrust case cannot be heard remotely, a U.S. magistrate judge in San Francisco ruled Thursday, granting Sutter Health hospital system's request to delay by months a jury trial that is over nine years in the making.

Citing COVID-19 concerns and the need to have the trial in person, Jones Day lawyers representing Sutter Health said the case facing the health care system should not be heard virtually because remote jury trials are not authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

"The court should not use this as the pilot case for determining whether remote jury trials can be done in a way that is fair and protects the parties' rights," Jones Day partner David Kiernan said.

Opposing the delay, New York class counsel Matthew L. Cantor, who in the lawsuit claims Sutter Health abused monopoly power to raise prices, said Jones Day is using the fact some plaintiffs' attorneys caught Covid as a strategic advantage to delay the trial. The two sides made their arguments this week in a joint letter to U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler.

"Sutter's position is extreme, baseless, and constitutes quintessential dilatory tactics," Cantor wrote. "It also seeks to take advantage of both the COVID-19 pandemic and health issues confronting plaintiffs' team."

Pointing to the $400 million in damages the plaintiffs seek, Jones Day said it is unrealistic to expect a remote jury, "sitting in their homes with all the real world distractions," would give the necessary attention to the evidence and issues raised in the proposed four- to five-week trial.

Siding with Jones Day, Beeler ruled to delay the trial until July 25, one of the lawyers who attended a hearing Thursday said, but did not want to be identified.

Earlier in the pandemic, efforts to conduct other state court trials with remote juries were plagued with problems including jurors who were in bed or exercising during proceedings.

Beeler delayed the Sutter Health trial despite the class citing a number of examples of judges using their authority to order a partial or fully remote trial over a party's objection.

"First, Sutter fails to cite any law holding that a case should not proceed remotely due to the amount in controversy," Cantor wrote. "Sutter has it exactly backwards. The amount at stake is why the trial in this almost decade-old case should go forward now."

Filed in 2012 under claims of attempted monopolization and violation of California Unfair Competition Law, the lawsuit alleges the hospital used a monopoly position to force health insurance plans to include in-patient hospital services from Sutter in order to offer commercial insurance products in Northern California markets. Sidibe v. Sutter Health, 12-cv-04854 (N.D. Cal., filed Sep. 17, 2012).